Religion And Politics, Religion and Politics Options

[ozzy]

Here in Sunny Australia we recently had an election that saw the conservative Liberals defeat the Labor party in a landslide. The size of the victory has meant that the Liberal party has senate control which gives them the power to pass any legislation they want, a first for Australia. Already they have flagged there intentions to destroy the unions which have strong links to the Labor party but they have also brought religous issues to the fore, mainly due to the strong ultra right wing christian prescene in the party. This scares me already these moral crusaders have been all over the press indicating drastic changes to abortion rules, it is only the beginning but the element of the ultra right christian in the Liberal party begs me to ask what place does religion have in politics.

[freedom_mumia]

I'm glad that you think everyone should have a right to be who they want. But then when this party you don't like some to power you think it shouldn't be.

[letsgetreal]

^Freedom mumia, i dont even understand your response

Anyway, what place does religion have in politics? Well ill tell you what place it should have: NONE. Unfortunatelly, its not like that, as we all see, which is becoming a worrying problem.

[somasoul]

How is religion invading politics?

[defiance]

I'm glad that you think everyone should have a right to be who they want. But then when this party you don't like some to power you think it shouldn't be.
[right][snapback]142784[/snapback][/right]

Just because we believe in democracy and popular election, that doesn't mean we can't oppose the policies of a democraticly elected president. There is such a thing as legitimate opposition, meaning opposing the government within the limits of a democratic system. I wouldn't advocate violently overthrowing a popularly elected government, be it the Socialist government in Venezuela or the "Liberal" (ironic name, hahah) government in Australia. However, that does not mean I won't oppose the policies of that government if I believe they are wrong, or that I won't advocate electing a new government into office. I'm just surprised that so many people would be so supportive of a right-wing party like that, if it is as conservative as I keep hearing it is.

I have no problem with someone's policies being motivated by their religious beliefs; however, my problem is with making a specific religion itself a federal institution. We all have our convictions, so I think it is somewhat cheap to say simply that it is wrong to make a policy because of your religious beliefs (after all, what about people who believe in raising the poor up because of religious convictions?). Whether your beliefs are inspired by religion or any other type of conviction, they are all still your beliefs, and that is how you are going to decide policy if and when that power is given to you. But when a religion itself becomes a state institution (i.e. Islamic government in the middle east, or Papal government during the middle ages, etc.), that is when it goes from your policy being motivated by personal beliefs (which all policy is based on anyway), to the government and the country being completely dominated by one specific doctrine or philosophy, which is a dictatorship, in this case a religious dictatorship. That is what I am opposed to. Obviously I may or may not oppose certain policies that are based on a leaders religious beliefs, but that is not because it is religiously motivated, but rather because I oppose the policy. However, I would oppose a government being totally dominated by a certain religious institution, specifically because it is making that religion a government institution.

[somasoul]

Our government is so far removed from being a "Religious Dictatorship" I do not understand what all the hub-bub is about.

(DId I just say "Hub-Bub"? What am I..........80?

[Holter]

How is religion invading politics?
[right][snapback]142794[/snapback][/right]

Dont be ridiculous.

Religon was a major deciding factor in this election, its pretty obvious. It wasnt THE major issue, but it had an effect. Kerry is a religous man, but when you are a democrat, a lot of people get all uptight when a politician talks about god all the time. If he had gone after some of the religous undecided folk by being that way, he could have lost some of the liberal votes as well. I talked to some friends from Virginia and other parts of the South, and they all said that they wanted a President that was a man of god, so they were voting for Bush. They just didnt konw that Kerry was a religous man because Kerry really couldnt campaign that way strongly.

[defiance]

Our government is so far removed from being a "Religious Dictatorship" I do not understand what all the hub-bub is about.

(DId I just say "Hub-Bub"? What am I..........80?
[right][snapback]142798[/snapback][/right]

I never sad it was a religious dictatorship, so what are you talkign about. All I said as that I am opposed to religious dictatorship. I personally think it would be imposign on religious freedom, for instance, to have class-room prayers. If someone wants to pray to themselves, fine, or if it is a private religious school, fine; but in public schools, it should be and is completely illegal to hold a classroom prayer. However, the freedom-loving religious right seems ot think there is no problem with classroom prayer in public school, and so many on the right advocate having it. That is one example of a policy that can impose on religious freedom. Not saying you specifically believe in it - you are against school altogether anyway, which is great.

What pisses me off is that so many people seem to fall for this "Bush = prophet" crap, or the "he is Christian," and "he is a man of God," crap. What kidn of Christian does the thigns he does? None but a fake. He's nothing like what Christ advocated, so when people vote for him based on his constant use of religion, it really is very ironic and extremely irritating, to say the least. Holter explained it well.

[Dataika]

I am against people even making decisions based on religious belief. Religion has NO PLACE in a political institution..

Religion relies on dogma, superstition and various other things. It should stay OUT.

[ley-adam.99]

Weren't a lot of Chrisitan experiments aimed at creating a socialist state. I think I've mentioned John Ball before. As a priest, he managed to create a small communistic society.

[RAGEist]

I am against people even making decisions based on religious belief.  Religion has NO PLACE in a political institution..

Religion relies on dogma, superstition and various other things.  It should stay OUT.
[right][snapback]142852[/snapback][/right]

My karma ran over your dogma

(sorry, we needed a joke in here )

[ley-adam.99]

Also, if the vast majority of a population are religous, then of course it will play a part in electoral politics. But isn't this what is supposed to happen in a democracy? Aren't people supposed to elect leaders who will carry out the policies that they feel strongly about, eg/ dissallowing gay marriage or stem cell research. I'm not saying I agree with it, but given the nature of democracy, religion has a very important and legitimate role within democratic politics.

[Dataika]

Weren't a lot of Chrisitan experiments aimed at creating a socialist state.  I think I've mentioned John Ball before.  As a priest, he managed to create a small communistic society.
[right][snapback]142854[/snapback][/right]

Could he have created one without religion though? That is, without the superstition and just relied on logical propositions? Religion has a for worse track record of sponsoring fascist states and monarchial tyrants than it does of establishing a communist society.

Rageist:

My karma ran over your dogma

[ley-adam.99]

Could he have created one without religion though? That is, without the superstition and just relied on logical propositions? Religion has a for worse track record of sponsoring fascist states and monarchial tyrants than it does of establishing a communist society.

Perhaps he could, but I think the main impetus for its establishment was his dedication of realising the values he saw in the Bible, ie. love and toleration for your brothers and sisters (I'm not a Christian btw).

Some forms of religion have been quite revolutionary, for example the Protestant Reformation in Europe occured at the same time as the Renaissance. As a result of both movements, people came to realise that they could have a poisitve impact upon the world, and that they could discover the laws of the universe and of their creator by science (no less). Religion and scientific reason grew along very similar lines, with many scientists and philosophers still beleieving in the divine. Sorry, got a bit side tracked there.

In short, I don't think you should generalise religion to dogmatism, or indeed generalise religion. Much good has come out of it too, besides the bad.

[letsgetreal]

Could he have created one without religion though? That is, without the superstition and just relied on logical propositions? Religion has a for worse track record of sponsoring fascist states and monarchial tyrants than it does of establishing a communist society.

Perhaps he could, but I think the main impetus for its establishment was his dedication of realising the values he saw in the Bible, ie. love and toleration for your brothers and sisters (I'm not a Christian btw).

Some forms of religion have been quite revolutionary, for example the Protestant Reformation in Europe occured at the same time as the Renaissance. As a result of both movements, people came to realise that they could have a poisitve impact upon the world, and that they could discover the laws of the universe and of their creator by science (no less). Religion and scientific reason grew along very similar lines, with many scientists and philosophers still beleieving in the divine. Sorry, got a bit side tracked there.

In short, I don't think you should generalise religion to dogmatism, or indeed generalise religion. Much good has come out of it too, besides the bad.

Values are one thing, religion is another different thing. For example, the christian religion believes in respecting the others (... theorically). So do i. And i think this should be a moral that should be present in society, and also in politics. This doesnt mean the christian religion should be present. Of course, if in a population of 100 people they are all religious, and they elect a religious leader with religious policies, that will turn into religion becoming part of politics. It has been proven that all mixure of this two has caused nothing more than trouble and conflict between individuals.

RAGEist... it took me a while but i finally got the joke... Im not slow, im spanish.. maybe both, who knows